Aside from the page that Gunther mentioned, you can go to the stats page at https://www.metal-archives.com/stats and have a look at the most reviewed albums. You'll probably already know which have the highest scores.

I was amazed at all the intensive ratings that were in the stats put up by Gutterscream's link. Just for context, look at how much it says about CHAIRTHROWER'S writing: http://www.furia.com/em/rev_chairthrower.html Click on a band and it'll give you a list of people who reviewed it, you can also get a much more intricate list of reviewer stats than you get from the archives rating system.

This is wild. Maybe the archives can work with this system to really establish more accurate profiles of its reviewers (and the similar artists section) considering how old so many are getting and that, at the end of the day, we're not going to last forever. It'll be great to keep that record, if any, as either a better-known companion (maybe I'm just totally out of the loop) or as a collaboration between both sites in order to have something to show for the coming graveyard of reviewers here. Not to get all down in the dumps or anything.

That project blows my mind though, it's so comprehensive compared to the basic user stats on this site.

I was amazed at all the intensive ratings that were in the stats put up by Gutterscream's link. Just for context, look at how much it says about CHAIRTHROWER'S writing: http://www.furia.com/em/rev_chairthrower.html Click on a band and it'll give you a list of people who reviewed it, you can also get a much more intricate list of reviewer stats than you get from the archives rating system.

This is really cool and I've been fiddling with it for a while now. Some things I can't quite believe, like apparently my most reviewed genre is death metal and I've reviewed the highest percentage of albums in common with Trooper_Ed (22.5% of his reviews match with mine).

That link, good sire, has to be the coolest thing since Penthouse and the advent of heavy metal itself...plus, am sort of humbled you selected yours ruefully as an example...Although what does that general index really mean (mine is 94.3 or so)? I have trouble believing all my scores averaged out amount to such a high number, so it must mean something else entirely. I'm also a little flummoxed by the .107 parallel I share with Twisted_Psychology, for instance...

In any case, yeah, it's rather mind-blowing...I can see myself neurotically scanning said page harder than the dow jones, but I dig the rest!

(I really hope the Archives survives the hopefully-not-coming-apocalypse, so that in, say, 2176, ragers and rivet heads can guffaw and delight in our by-then arcane and antiquated use of English (not only mine). So long as we don't croak before nailing that grand # 1000, eh? Let's see if auto thrall can hit 10,000; although, truly, 5000 is/would be quite a feat in itself.

The empath site's algorithm lists the bands in all the genres they've ever played in, and organizes their albums as if they were all in those respective styles. This is how you get things like "Under A Funeral Moon" being one of the best listed death metal albums and "Heaven And Hell" being in the Top 20 best doom metal albums despite neither album really falling into those styles. I think there are limits to how specific the guy who runs the site was able to get the algorithm to function for practicality reasons, it was one of the reasons why I was so bummed out when Google closed the Needlepoint website, because that site allowed for a much wider array of categories for a statistical discordance of the site.